State v. Jeffers, 13935
| Decision Date | 23 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 13935,13935 |
| Citation | 251 S.E.2d 227,162 W.Va. 532 |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of West Virginia v. Michael JEFFERS. |
Syllabus by the Court
Where a trial court gives, over objection, an instruction which incompletely states the law, and the defect is not corrected by a later instruction, the giving of such incomplete instruction constitutes reversible error where the omission involves an element of the crime.
James W. Gipson, Huntington, for plaintiff in error.
Chauncey H. Browning, Atty. Gen., Woodrow H. Berry, Asst. Atty. Gen., Charleston, for defendant in error.
The petitioner, Michael Jeffers, was convicted in the Circuit Court of Lincoln County of passing in a no-passing zone in violation of W.Va.Code, 17C-7-7. He was fined $100.00 and sentenced to confinement in the Lincoln County Jail for thirty days.
After examining the record in this case we conclude that the judge of the circuit court committed two errors:
1. He improperly instructed the jury on what constitutes the crime of passing in a no-passing zone; and
2. He imposed an improper sentence upon the petitioner.
W.Va.Code, 17C-7-7 provides:
"The state road commission is hereby authorized to determine those portions of any highway where overtaking and passing or driving to the left of the roadway would be especially hazardous and may by appropriate signs or markings on the roadway indicate the beginning and end of such zones and when such signs or markings are in place and clearly visible to an ordinarily observant person every driver of a vehicle shall obey the directions thereof."
To implement the provisions of W.Va.Code, 17C-7-7, the West Virginia Department of Highways, pursuant to authority granted to it by W.Va.Code, 17C-3-1, adopted its Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Services for Streets and Highways. Section 3A-7(6) of that manual provides:
According to the manual the purpose of the double line is to channelize and separate traffic flowing in counter directions.
It is clear that the intent of the Legislature in adopting W.Va.Code, 17C-7-7, was to prohibit vehicles from passing on the left side of a highway, that is, from entering the channel of traffic flowing in the counter direction, when such movement would create a highway hazard.
Where traffic in a no-passing zone is channelized by a double line, the purpose of W.Va.Code, 17C-7-7, is to prohibit a vehicle from passing another vehicle by crossing the double line which, under the laws of this State, indicates the no-passing zone. See, Stamper v. Bannister, 146 W.Va. 100, 118 S.E.2d 313 (1961).
During the trial of the case before us, the petitioner, Michael Jeffers, admitted that he had passed another vehicle in an area designated as a no- passing zone by a double line. However, he contended that, in so doing, he had not crossed to the left side of the roadway; he had not crossed into the channel of on-coming traffic; and he had not crossed the double line. He testified that the vehicle which he had passed had slowed down and pulled off the roadway so as to allow him to pass without his entering the channel of on-coming traffic.
At the close of the evidence in the petitioner's case the State offered, and the trial judge gave, over the petitioner's objection, State's Instruction No. 3 which stated:
"The Court instructs the jury that if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt from the evidence presented in this case that the defendant, Michael Jeffers while operating a motor vehicle, did pass on the left of another motor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. England
...incomplete instruction constitutes reversible error where the omission involves an element of the crime." Syllabus, State v. Jeffers, 162 W.Va. 532, 251 S.E.2d 227 (1979). 4. The plain error doctrine contained in Rule 30 and Rule 52(b) of the West Virginia Rules of Criminal Procedure is ide......
-
State v. Barker
...that defines a crime but omits an essential element of the crime may constitute reversible error. In the syllabus of State v. Jeffers, 162 W.Va. 532, 251 S.E.2d 227 (1981), we said: "Where a trial court gives, over objection, an instruction which incompletely states the law, and the defect ......
-
State v. Vollmer
...17C-1-1, et seq., is a misdemeanor under W.Va.Code, 17C-18-1, unless a higher penalty is specifically provided. See State v. Jeffers, W.Va., 251 S.E.2d 227, 229 (1979). Consequently, the operation of a motor vehicle in violation of any of these statutes is technically an unlawful act, but i......
-
State v. Hoyle
...under West Virginia Code § 15-12-4(a).22 156 W. Va. 264, 192 S.E.2d 728 (1972).23 Id. at Syl. Pt. 4.24 See Syllabus, State v. Jeffers , 162 W. Va. 532, 251 S.E.2d 227 (1979) ("Where a trial court gives, over objection, an instruction which incompletely states the law, and the defect is not ......